Ver archivos de una publicación del INEC

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns file links (not the files themselves), which is useful, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or whether downloads are fetched. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned formats and the scoping ('one INEC publication') are packed into one line and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool the description is nearly complete; only deeper workflow/pagination details are absent, which is acceptable here.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the 'post' and 'format' parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'id or URL' without adding syntax, accepted URL forms, or format behavior beyond the schema's default. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (file links in one INEC publication) and enumerates the returned formats (PDF/XLSX/CSV/ZIP), which is more concrete than the title alone. It implicitly contrasts with search_inec_publicaciones by scoping to 'one' publication and citing that sibling as the id source, so an agent can distinguish listing from fetching.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical '(id or URL from search_inec_publicaciones)' establishes the workflow: run the search tool first, then call this with the resulting id or URL. This gives clear context for when the tool applies, though it offers no explicit when-not conditions or alternative file-listing tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.